Just William Books by Richmal Crompton

[Moonraker]

Not to mention trying to take a dig at those who have been fortunate enough to have led more interesting lives.

Good one, Deborah! It seems to be my turn to be on the carpet, now! Maybe this could be a new game thread - use the same word in as many possible meanings as possible:

Not to mention trying to take a dig at The Old Man of the Forums!

In any case, you don't need to excavate a pyramid or explore the mountains of Afghanistan to lead an exciting life! My life is interesting enough to me when I'm in my summerhouse with a good book!

[Katharine]

I thought perhaps there was a prize for the person who has travelled to the most outlandish place! My digs have been confined to the chalk-pit at West Harnham ( a suburb of Salisbury) and my back garden. Oh, and I have been known to have a dig around in the Cave of Books.

You are not alone. The world would still be 'flat' if it had been left to my ancestors to discover the rest of it! Most of my family live within a 10 mile radius

I'm an armchair traveller and enjoy learning about the rest of the world via other people's trips

[RDMorrell]

Coming back to the debate about William and the Nasties, I don't think it's an anti-Jewish story at all (notwithstanding the stereotyping used), but rather anti-Nazi. Moreover, I believe that it's actually designed to challenge the readers' own prejudices. (Anti-Semitism was quite common in Europe prior to World War II, and Crompton - whether she actually shared such views or not - would certainly have observed it, and children tend to emulate their parents' beliefs until they're old enough to make up their own minds about things.)

Just look at the name used for Nazis - "Nasties". Not very flattering, and I rather think Crompton was making a not-so-subtle dig at them. There's also a bit of fun poked at Hitler - where William says that "Herr Hitler" is a pretty stupid name, and he would prefer to be "Him Hitler". (I had a good chuckle at this bit or word-play.)

Granted, the Jewish shop owner is portrayed in a rather negative and stereotypical fashion. However, I think that, rather than being racist anti-Semitism, it's actually setting the reader up to end up feeling as foolish as the Outlaws do when the story ends. They foil a burglar in his shop (somewhat ironic when they had been planning to rob him themselves!) and, not knowing what their own plans had been, the sweet shop owner rewards them generously. So at this point, he actually goes against the stereotype, and this is the point where both the Outlaws and the reader are made to feel a bit silly.

So the message I think that Crompton is actually trying to convey is that Jews aren't so bad after all and that prejudice against them is both foolish and, well, "nasty". Rather than reinforcing prejudice, it's actually a piece of biting social commentary that turns it on its head in the end and challenges it. It would be a bit like writing a story today that featured a Muslim character stereotyped as a terrorist and persecuted as such, but who then turns out to be a kind and benevolent person who did something (e.g. saved a life, helped someone in need) that completely proved the stereotype wrong.

All that said, there are parts of the story that make for extremely uncomfortable reading, and I can understand why it was removed from later editions of William the Detective. But if Richmal Crompton's true intention had been to write a piece of anti-Jewish propaganda, I don't believe the story would have ended the way it did. I think she has been much cleverer with this story than people give her credit for.

[Timmylover]

Coming back to the debate about William and the Nasties, I don't think it's an anti-Jewish story at all (notwithstanding the stereotyping used), but rather anti-Nazi. Moreover, I believe that it's actually designed to challenge the readers' own prejudices. (Anti-Semitism was quite common in Europe prior to World War II, and Crompton - whether she actually shared such views or not - would certainly have observed it, and children tend to emulate their parents' beliefs until they're old enough to make up their own minds about things.)

To be very generous, this story may contain elements of anti-Nazism but unfortunately is, at the same time, anti-Semitic. It must be remembered that this was a children's story and no child should have to read about a "hook nosed" Jew within any context. Anti-Semitism (described as the oldest hatred) has existed for 2000 years and I am well aware of its history. To claim that it was "quite common in Europe prior to World War II" needs some clarification. It was certainly common amongst Eastern European peasantry and in some of their Western European counterparts, not so amongst most of the more enlightened and the intelligentsia. Crompton was clearly not a member of the latter two groups. It is true that most children tend to emulate their parents' beliefs, I certainly did which is why, as the child of decidedly non-racist parents, I was shocked and repelled by Crompton's negative, stereotypical descriptions of a Jew.

So the message I think that Crompton is actually trying to convey is that Jews aren't so bad after all and that prejudice against them is both foolish and, well, "nasty". Rather than reinforcing prejudice, it's actually a piece of biting social commentary that turns it on its head in the end and challenges it.

So why did she resort to using such distasteful and offensive descriptions in the first place? If her idea was to reverse prejudicial ideas about Jews she went about it in a very strange way. This was no "piece of biting social commentary" which would, in any case, be misunderstood as such by most children. If she had intended to write in that manner she made a very clumsy job of it which was certainly inappropriate for children. It was certainly not necessary for her to use such emotive language in order to show that "Jews aren't so bad after all". I never thought they were, I'm not so sure about Crompton's views and, as a child, I felt insulted that she imagined all her readership would share hers.

All that said, there are parts of the story that make for extremely uncomfortable reading, and I can understand why it was removed from later editions of William the Detective. But if Richmal Crompton's true intention had been to write a piece of anti-Jewish propaganda, I don't believe the story would have ended the way it did. I think she has been much cleverer with this story than people give her credit for.

I think that your feelings towards Crompton are far more generous than she deserves. I also don't believe that she intended to write a piece of obviously anti-Jewish propaganda, but not for the same reasons that you give. She would have been aware that in order for the story to be accepted for publication this would not have been possible and therefore tempered the obviously crude descriptions of Mr Isaacs by giving the story a positive and acceptable ending. I cannot believe that someone who was not anti-semitic would have used the words she did in initially describing a Jewish character. If her intention had been to produce a salient piece of writing that would warn children of the dangers of racial stereotyping then this was a very clumsy and inappropriate way to go about it. It would have been much cleverer to have avoided the distateful descriptions and I can only repeat that it is unthinkable that someone who is not anti-Semitic would have used her words in the first place. It is for the latter reason that I believe the story was removed from later editions.

[RDMorrell]

It would have been much cleverer to have avoided the distateful descriptions and I can only repeat that it is unthinkable that someone who is not anti-Semitic would have used her words in the first place. It is for the latter reason that I believe the story was removed from later editions.

You are probably correct in that surmise. However, I'm not entirely convinced that the descriptions were purely a result of Crompton's alleged anti-Semitism (I say "alleged", because outside this story, I'm not sure whether there is any other evidence of her having anti-Semitic beliefs). As I tried to explain in my previous post, I think it was part of a set-up to play on the readers' own prejudices and preconceived stereotypes, and then knock them on the head at the end. With the result that the reader, as well as the Outlaws, ends up feeling a little bit foolish. Maybe it was rather clumsily done, but rightly or wrongly, I feel that was Crompton's basic aim. In any case, I certainly don't think she's at all sympathetic to what the Nazis are doing. Apart from calling them "nasties" and making fun of Hitler a little bit, the Outlaws observe that it's actually legal to steal from Jews in Germany (if I'm remembering the story rightly). So the Nazi raids on Jewish homes and business are called "legalised stealing", essentially. In other words, the Nazis are being described point-blank as thieves, which is again not very supportive of them.

Again if I'm remembering rightly, the Outlaws get an attack of "the guilts" when they're invading Mr Isaacs' shop, with a sudden feeling that what they're doing is wrong, even if it is legal in Germany. All in all, regardless of the stereotyping, Nazi treatment of Jews is much more condemned than condoned in this story. Maybe Crompton was trying to make the story more publishable, or maybe, irrespective of her own feelings towards Jewish people, she felt real disgust at what the Nazis were doing, and this story was her take on it.

[Timmylover]

I cannot believe that someone who was not anti-semitic would have used the words she did in initially describing a Jewish character.

I'm not entirely convinced that the descriptions were purely a result of Crompton's alleged anti-Semitism (I say "alleged", because outside this story, I'm not sure whether there is any other evidence of her having anti-Semitic beliefs).

No other evidence is necessary. To have used expressions such as "hook nosed Jew" even once tells me everything I need to know about the anti-Semitism of this particular character. Whether or not she was also anti-Nazi is not relevent to my original post, neither is it "proof" that she was not anti-Semitic. As I said earlier, she betrays her anti-Semitism in her own words. The fact that she may not have repeated them elsewhere does not detract from her usage of them on this occasion.

[Moonraker]

I am currently bidding for a copy of William and the Detectives, on eBay at the moment, so if I get it, I will read it with interest and comment accordingly.

Some of Agatha Christies work was labelled anti-semetic (she usually referred to a Jewish lady as a "fat Jewess") and Charles Dickens portrayed the Jewish Fagin in a pretty unfavourable light.

You can read Why Do People Hate the Jews, HERE.

[Timmylover]

Some of Agatha Christies work was labelled anti-semetic (she usually referred to a Jewish lady as a "fat Jewess") and Charles Dickens portrayed the Jewish Fagin in a pretty unfavourable light.

I have never read any Agatha Christie books but have been informed by other sources that she was indeed anti-Semitic. The case of Dickens and Fagin is not so straightforward.

Dickens originally based the character of Fagin on one of his co-workers at the infamous blacking factory, a young Jewish boy did become a member of the criminal underworld. Dickens later regretted his original portrayal of Fagin and removed all negative references to "The Jew" from the final fifteen chapters of his first edition text.

In his later book Our Mutual Friend, Dickens created several Jewish characters. They are portrayed in a very positive light, with the elderly Mr Riah being a helper and benefactor of "unfortunate women", finding them jobs in Jewish owned factories. Lizzie Hexam later says of her Jewish employers, "The gentleman certainly is a Jew, and the lady, his wife, is a Jewess, and I was brought to their notice by a Jew. But I think there cannot be kinder people in the world."

Dickens, as one of the greatest writers in the English language, cannot be lumped together with either Crompton or Christie, two very inferior writers. Neither can their anti-Semitism be compared with Dickens. The former writers neither regretted nor retracted their ant-Semitic references.

This topic is now becoming very protracted and wearisome.

[Katharine]

I am currently bidding for a copy of William and the Detectives, on eBay at the moment, so if I get it, I will read it with interest and comment accordingly.

Some of Agatha Christies work was labelled anti-semetic (she usually referred to a Jewish lady as a "fat Jewess") and Charles Dickens portrayed the Jewish Fagin in a pretty unfavourable light.

You can read Why Do People Hate the Jews, HERE.

An interesting article. I didn't read all the links though. It's something I've wondered about, why has a particular race seemed to have attracted so much hatred by so many people for such a long time?

I've read quite a few Agatha Christie books and I get the impression she stereotyped a lot of different races, not just the Jews. There's one passage where someone turned out to be a German spy. A comment was made along the lines that the 'hero' couldn't believe they had mistaken the obvious hard ugly Prussian looks for a gentle Englishman. I've a feeling it was 'N or M', but I could well be wrong.

I also have a feeling that I've read Agatha Christie describing a young woman as a 'beautiful Jewess'. Could it be a case of the critics only picking out the bits which suit their particular axe to grind. In the same way that Enid Blyton's portrayal of Gollies as the hero in some stories is forgotten?

[Moonraker]

Dickens, as one of the greatest writers in the English language, cannot be lumped together with either Crompton or Christie, two very inferior writers.

Hey! If I lived nearer to you, I would come round and give you a good slap! How dare you say that Christie is an inferior writer. Her books (like Blyton's) have held the top spot for decades, and are fantastic examples of the crime genre. You'll be saying Blyton is inferior to Dickens next!

This topic is now becoming very protracted and wearisome.

Then stop posting and winding people up, Deborah! You are the one who bounces back after every post! Many topics have become "protracted and wearisome" to me, so I don't look at them!

[70s-child]

Dickens, as one of the greatest writers in the English language, cannot be lumped together with either Crompton or Christie, two very inferior writers. Neither can their anti-Semitism be compared with Dickens. The former writers neither regretted nor retracted their ant-Semitic references.

Actually, I distinctly remember reading in one of Christie's biographies (sorry, I can't remember by which author, since it was many years ago) that Christie profoundly regretted her anti-semitic attitude when she learned about the Holocaust. She said it was done in ignorance.

And I agree with Moonraker - I don't consider Christie an inferior writer at all! Her plots are brilliant. She may not have the skill of Dickens when it comes to prose, but after all they were writing very different kinds of books, and their style was very different. I think popular writers get a very bad rap unnecessarily.

[Moonraker]

And I agree with Moonraker - I don't consider Christie an inferior writer at all! Her plots are brilliant.

Of course she's not inferior. It's a ridiculous thing to say. I get fed up with so called intellectuals dishing popular writers such as Blyton and Christie, then waxing lyrically about Thackeray and Shakespeare, just to look intellectual. Vox Pop for me, everytime!

[Timmylover]

Hey! If I lived nearer to you, I would come round and give you a good slap! How dare you say that Christie is an inferior writer. Her books (like Blyton's) have held the top spot for decades, and are fantastic examples of the crime genre.

You'd be in for a shock if you even tried, and since when did best-sellers mean best-writers? The crime genre is not something I have any interest in.

You'll be saying Blyton is inferior to Dickens next!

I think I already have.

]This topic is now becoming very protracted and wearisome.

Then stop posting and winding people up, Deborah! You are the one who bounces back after every post! Many topics have become "protracted and wearisome" to me, so I don't look at them!

Let me just remind you who started all this - YOU! Dragging up an old post of mine, from a different thread, for what purpose only you know. As for me bouncing back after every post, I feel strongly about racism and could not leave some of the strange notions that appeared, unchallenged. It's really hypocritical for you to talk about winding people up - you never stop. I post about serious topics in a serious manner. If some people are "wound up" about them that was not my intention. I can't say the same about some of your posts.

Actually, I distinctly remember reading in one of Christie's biographies (sorry, I can't remember by which author, since it was many years ago) that Christie profoundly regretted her anti-semitic attitude when she learned about the Holocaust. She said it was done in ignorance.

That is very heartening to know. I always admire people who realise when they have done something wrong and sincerely apologise for it.

As far as writers go, each to their own, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and tastes.

Edit: I have just noticed Nigel's latest masterpiece. I consider myself very fortunate not to share his thought patterns. Talk about inverted snobbery!

[Moonraker]

t's really hypocritical for you to talk about winding people up - you never stop. I post about serious topics in a serious manner. If some people are "wound up" about them that was not my intention. I can't say the same about some of your posts.

Don't let's have a poll on that one. I think you'd lose!

By the way, what's my "Latest masterpiece"?

[Lucky Star]

Dickens originally based the character of Fagin on one of his co-workers at the infamous blacking factory, a young Jewish boy did become a member of the criminal underworld. Dickens later regretted his original portrayal of Fagin and removed all negative references to "The Jew" from the final fifteen chapters of his first edition text.

In his later book Our Mutual Friend, Dickens created several Jewish characters. They are portrayed in a very positive light, with the elderly Mr Riah being a helper and benefactor of "unfortunate women", finding them jobs in Jewish owned factories. Lizzie Hexam later says of her Jewish employers, "The gentleman certainly is a Jew, and the lady, his wife, is a Jewess, and I was brought to their notice by a Jew. But I think there cannot be kinder people in the world."

Interesting how you defend your beloved Dickens from any charges of anti semitism despite the fact that his Fagin character probably had far more influence on people than Crompton's Mr Isaacs. You defend him by noting that he later created more sympathetic Jewish characters. This, to my mind, is no differant from Crompton's final portrayal of Mr Isaacs as a good and generous man at the end of the story. Sorry but if one is guilty then they both are.

I have discovered an interesting piece of research by a Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons in which he says;

Despite the negative attitude towards Jews throughout this story, it does end on a very positive note. Richmal Crompton could have concluded the story by writing that Mr. Isaacs told the Outlaws to take just a small bar of chocolate or a handful of sweets. Although the Outlaws would probably have been happy (and also have had a clear conscience) with even this small gesture - (their toned-down objective had been just to “take, say, ten sweets each an’ then go home” (116)) - it would have conveyed to the reader of the story that the Jewish shopkeeper was unappreciative.

But, on the contrary, Richmal Crompton did not do this. She wrote that Mr. Isaacs showed his great appreciation to the Outlaws by his letting them take as many sweets as they can carry. In addition he told them “and ven you come to spend your Saturday pennies, you will find that I have not forgotten. (117) By this, Richmal Crompton illustrates the good character of the Jewish shopkeeper Mr. Isaacs who showed no grudge against the Outlaws. As we have seen in this story, prior to this incident they had, amongst other unpleasant activities directed against him, stood by his shop door making all sorts of catcalls such as “cheats never prosper.”

He also states;

We cannot come to any definite conclusion regarding Richmal Crompton’s attitude towards Jews in general,

He mentions many other such incidents throughout literature. Although his eventual conclusion is that Crompton was probably an anti semite of some description, he demonstrates quite conclusively that an attitide of casual or ignorance based anti semitism was not uncommon during that period. Thus my point that the story was nothing unusual at the time of its writing is a valid one.

If you are interested in reading Rabbi Simons' research the link is below.

http://www.oocities.org/chaimsimons/justwilliam.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;